Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch

Search Opinions/Memo Decs

Search filter ON - 46 records found    Clear search filter
Date Range: 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2018
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Search Decisions

12345
12/18/2018   CV-17-0322-PRCONKLIN ET UX v MEDTRONIC INC ET ALOPINION
  John Pelander, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur

12/10/2018   CR-93-0377-APSTATE OF ARIZONA v CHARLES MICHAEL HEDLUNDOPINION
 Clint Bolick, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; Garye L Vasquez, Dissent

12/6/2018   CV-18-0205-AP/ELLEACH V REAGAN/CLEAN ENERGY FOR A HEALTHY ARIZONAOPINION
 Ann A. Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur in part; Dissent in part; Clint Bolick, Concur in part; Dissent in part; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur in part; Dissent in part

 

JUSTICE TIMMER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and JUSTICE PELANDER joined. CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, joined by JUSTICE PELANDER, filed a concurring opinion. JUSTICE PELANDER filed a concurring opinion. JUSTICE GOULD, joined by JUSTICES BOLICK and LOPEZ, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

Per ASC Order Filed on December 6, 2018:

CV-18-0205-AP/EL and CV-18-0230-AP/EL are consolidated. CV-18-0205-AP/EL is designated as the primary case number. 

 

12/3/2018   CV-18-0101-PRPHOENIX CITY PROSECUTOR v. HON. LOWERY/CLAUDETTE CRAIGOPINION
 Andrew W. Gould, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; Karl C. Eppich, Concur

11/29/2018   CV-18-0057-PRHOPI TRIBE v ARIZONA SNOWBOWL RESORT et alOPINION
  John Pelander, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur; Scott Bales, Dissent; Clint Bolick, Dissent

11/21/2018   CV-18-0222-AP/ELJOSHUA STANWITZ ET AL v REAGAN/OUTLAW DIRTY MONEYOPINION
 John R. Lopez, IV, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur

 

This Opinion Amends the Opinion filed on November 21, 2018.

 

On page 5, paragraph 11:

 

Incorrect:

¶11        The Committee and Petitioners filed expedited appeals in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-161(B).  The Committee challenges the constitutionality of §§ 19-102.01(A) and 19-118(C), and the trial court’s decision to disqualify the non-appearing subpoenaed circulators’ petition signatures.  Because the parties agree that the validity of the signatures gathered by the non-appearing circulators is dispositive as to whether the Initiative qualified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot, we do not consider Petitioners’ appeal.

 

Correct:

¶11        The Committee and Petitioners filed expedited appeals in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(A).  The Committee challenges the constitutionality of §§ 19-102.01(A) and 19-118(C), and the trial court’s decision to disqualify the non-appearing subpoenaed circulators’ petition signatures.  Because the parties agree that the validity of the signatures gathered by the non-appearing circulators is dispositive as to whether the Initiative qualified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot, we do not consider Petitioners’ appeal.


Constitutionality Decision

Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 19-118(C), which requires registered petition circulators properly served with a subpoena to provide evidence in an action regarding circulation of petitions and invalidates signatures collected by a circulator who fails to appear or produce documents as provided for in the subpoena.

11/1/2018   CV-18-0187-AP/ELLOUIS HOFFMAN et al v MICHELE REAGAN et alOPINION
 Scott Bales, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, IV, Concur

10/26/2018   CV-18-0218-AP/ELJAIME MOLERA et al v REAGAN/INVEST IN EDUCATIONOPINION
 Scott Bales, Dissent; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Dissent

 PER CURIAM
9/27/2018   CR-93-0362-APSTATE OF ARIZONA v JAMES ERIN MCKINNEYOPINION
 Andrew W. Gould, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Garye L Vasquez

9/25/2018   CR-14-0351-APSTATE OF ARIZONA v JOSE ALEJANDRO ACUNA VALENZUELAOPINION
 Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann A. Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; Kenton D. Jones, Concur

 Constitutionality Decision

Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(12) against the challenge that it provides inadequate guidance, is overly vague, applies to more than only a subclass of defendants, and does not require a sufficient causal relationship between the aggravator and offense.

 

Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that the Arizona death penalty statutory scheme does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or article 2, sections 4 and 15 of the Arizona constitution.

12345